ahnhub wrote:Again, I don't think the drop in enrollment is gonna be as extreme as the numbers I ran point to, but if it were, and attrition held steady at current rates, there would be 34,000 new JD's entering the market in 2015, which would be the lowest number since 1981: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

ahnhub wrote:Again, I don't think the drop in enrollment is gonna be as extreme as the numbers I ran point to, but if it were, and attrition held steady at current rates, there would be 34,000 new JD's entering the market in 2015, which would be the lowest number since 1981: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Please please actually happen

Amen. I know optimism isn't encouraged here but anything close to those numbers + a recovering economy (which would mean more lawyers from the boomers retiring) could leave us all gainfully employed in the law profession!

boredatwork wrote: Amen. I know optimism isn't encouraged here but anything close to those numbers + a recovering economy (which would mean more lawyers from the boomers retiring) could leave us all gainfully employed in the law profession!

Well, if there really are 26,000 job openings every year 34,000 still ain't gonna cut it, not by a long shot.

boredatwork wrote: Amen. I know optimism isn't encouraged here but anything close to those numbers + a recovering economy (which would mean more lawyers from the boomers retiring) could leave us all gainfully employed in the law profession!

Well, if there really are 26,000 job openings every year 34,000 still ain't gonna cut it, not by a long shot.

timbs4339 wrote:I'm not so sure about that. The TTTs are more likely to not have endowments to help them blunt the pain- meaning that they are basically operating in a model where cash coming in must go out. Therefore they must maintain class size or their school will fold. They also cannot give out huge scholarships to try and entice more students because that money is already allocated to other things.

Now if the T1s and T2s are taking students that normally would have gone to TTTs, the TTTs will simply just pluck people out of the 130 and low 140 range to fill their classes. Who cares about LSAT/GPA right? But then they are going to have a serious problem assembling a class where 75% of the students can pass the bar. Thomas Jefferson did- only 33% of their most recent class passed. If this continues, they might lose accreditation.

Luckily for TJSL, they can operate as an unaccredited school in CA where they are located. But some other TTTs can't. If they lose accreditation their graduates cannot sit for the bar. And then they either have to make SERIOUS cuts in class size, or they fold for lack of applicants.

I go to a private TTT. Though the school remained TTT in 2011 and 2012, it dropped about 10 spots. An e-mail was sent out in which the dean said they were going to decrease the incoming class in order to increase the UGPA/LSAT scores, which would mean maybe a higher USNews ranking. I don't really see what the big deal about the drop is. 110 to 120 or whatever is still TTT to TTT. This method will be... interesting... for tuition rates that go up every year. In the past years, the school said that tuition increases were due to costs associated with professors' salaries.

As for bar passage rates in my state, ironically enough, FIU (not sure if T3 or T4) had the highest passage rate.

That's interesting but not surprising. Generally, T3 and T4 schools are bar prep schools- teaching you to pass the bar for three years. Why this costs 40 or 50K per year when Barbri can do it in three months for $3.5K is another question. They also fail out a significant number of students which probably helps the rate. I did notice that schools like Ave Maria, FAMU, Barry were dead last though.

ilovesf wrote:Hastings announced this a while ago actually, it isn't really news or anything. I have no problem with reducing the class size by 20%, I think it is the responsible thing to do. Having a class size of 400+ makes it extremely difficult to have good employment prospects in such a desired market, or anywhere really. I also don't mind them cutting some staff if it means they aren't raising tuition even more. I don't really understand why this is being portrayed in such a negative light. It isn't like they are increasing the class size.

It's interesting because when push comes to shove, tenured faculty are not different from any other power group in American society, meaning they will sacrifice anything before their standard of living is affected. This is despite all their BS rhetoric and their supposed love of their institutions and blah blah. They will push as much of the costs as they can on students. Then, if that reaches a tipping point as it has done over the last few years and they are unable to push any more onto students, they will push it on to lower paid administrative employees. They will do so much to prevent themselves from hurting that it would take the complete dissolution of the law school for them to start feeling it, and then I bet those consequences would be concentrated among younger faculty. This is like Dewey which is imploding as we speak, but where the same partners who plunged the firm into despair will emerge relatively unscathed, with increasing levels of pain being felt by non-equity partners, then seniors, midlevels, juniors, 3Ls, SAs, and staff. The same thing happened with Howrey. If anyone doubts that law school is just a business and professors and deans are the owners, you have only to look at what will happen over the next few months.

I am sad for the people who lost their jobs. I think there is still a long way to go and many more need to lose their jobs before this system gets back into equilibrium because the amount of administrative bloat at some law schools is staggering. However, I would like to see one of these faculties take a haircut before they have to fire some 9-5 Joe.

ilovesf wrote:Hastings announced this a while ago actually, it isn't really news or anything. I have no problem with reducing the class size by 20%, I think it is the responsible thing to do. Having a class size of 400+ makes it extremely difficult to have good employment prospects in such a desired market, or anywhere really. I also don't mind them cutting some staff if it means they aren't raising tuition even more. I don't really understand why this is being portrayed in such a negative light. It isn't like they are increasing the class size.

I am sad for the people who lost their jobs. I think there is still a long way to go and many more need to lose their jobs before this system gets back into equilibrium because the amount of administrative bloat at some law schools is staggering. However, I would like to see one of these faculties take a haircut before they have to fire some 9-5 Joe.

The reduction in class size won't really change Hastings LSAT/GPA numbers. If they kept the same class size they were looking at a significant drop in numbers. Cutting the class size saved them of the embarrassment. The prospective pool of candidates this year was extremely lacking (Which is why Hastings isn't the only school to reduce in size.)

If Hastings is going to reduce class size 20% they also need to cut costs. You can't fire tenured faculty without cause. There are basically two ways to cut tenured faculty. Wait until they retire or offer them lucrative "early-retirement" packages. This makes firing at will employees much easier than dealing with tenured teachers.

Hastings, like other bureaucracies, have vested interests. Each interest strongly believes in their cause. It's not just about people not wanting to lose their job. It's because they truly believe in... well, name a subject (equality, safety, career services, etc...)

This makes people DAMN mad. Should it be surprising LEOP people are mad they lost 1/3rd of their staff. No. Is it because they just want to stay on the payroll? Again, no. They believe in what they are doing.

The tone of this entire blog is rather troubling ("Law School Scam" should give away it's agenda.) Hastings is a rational actor acting within a competitive market. The way this blog tries to portray Hastings is rather disingenuous.

ilovesf wrote:Hastings announced this a while ago actually, it isn't really news or anything. I have no problem with reducing the class size by 20%, I think it is the responsible thing to do. Having a class size of 400+ makes it extremely difficult to have good employment prospects in such a desired market, or anywhere really. I also don't mind them cutting some staff if it means they aren't raising tuition even more. I don't really understand why this is being portrayed in such a negative light. It isn't like they are increasing the class size.

I am sad for the people who lost their jobs. I think there is still a long way to go and many more need to lose their jobs before this system gets back into equilibrium because the amount of administrative bloat at some law schools is staggering. However, I would like to see one of these faculties take a haircut before they have to fire some 9-5 Joe.

The reduction in class size won't really change Hastings LSAT/GPA numbers. If they kept the same class size they were looking at a significant drop in numbers. Cutting the class size saved them of the embarrassment. The prospective pool of candidates this year was extremely lacking (Which is why Hastings isn't the only school to reduce in size.)

If Hastings is going to reduce class size 20% they also need to cut costs. You can't fire tenured faculty without cause. There are basically two ways to cut tenured faculty. Wait until they retire or offer them lucrative "early-retirement" packages. This makes firing at will employees much easier than dealing with tenured teachers.

Hastings, like other bureaucracies, have vested interests. Each interest strongly believes in their cause. It's not just about people not wanting to lose their job. It's because they truly believe in... well, name a subject (equality, safety, career services, etc...)

This makes people DAMN mad. Should it be surprising LEOP people are mad they lost 1/3rd of their staff. No. Is it because they just want to stay on the payroll? Again, no. They believe in what they are doing.

The tone of this entire blog is rather troubling ("Law School Scam" should give away it's agenda.) Hastings is a rational actor acting within a competitive market. The way this blog tries to portray Hastings is rather disingenuous.

It's the last part of that statement that is troubling. If law schools want to start being treated like rational actors in a competitive market, then they are going to have to give up a lot of the federal subsidies that allow them to charge inflated tuition, as well as start being accountable to courts in actions for fraud and misrepresenting employment statistics. Maybe they should also pay taxes.

I fail to understand why people think it is so strange that academics, (and law academics) should be held to a higher standard than a for-profit corporation.

timbs4339 wrote:It's the last part of that statement that is troubling. If law schools want to start being treated like rational actors in a competitive market, then they are going to have to give up a lot of the federal subsidies that allow them to charge inflated tuition, as well as start being accountable to courts in actions for fraud and misrepresenting employment statistics. Maybe they should also pay taxes.

I fail to understand why people think it is so strange that academics, (and law academics) should be held to a higher standard than a for-profit corporation.

I can't think of a single ABA-Accredited law school in existence (with the exception of Phoenix Online.) Universities and professional schools don't just grow up overnight. It takes decades to establish a sustainable school. Having for-profit law schools is even more difficult because, all else equal, they would have to have higher tuition to maintain profitability (meaning they will leave the market.)

Assuming they somehow did exist, yes, you're right. It's just a historical norm that creates a societal expectation that education should be non-profit or public. If public/non-profit institutions had to pay the real cost of education they would either go out of existence or be no different than for-profit Universities.

Most people argue for public education because it's a positive externality on society. That's debatable and not worth derailing the thread.

Note: This has nothing to do with Hastings reducing its class size. But it is a nice break from studying.

Edit: I just noticed you said they shouldn't charge "inflated" tuition. If they are a rational actor then they are not paying "inflated" tuition. If they are a non-profit then they have no incentive to charged "inflated" tuition. There is no profit motive and they couldn't if they wanted to because of a competitive market. If they became for-profit they would actually have to increase the cost of tuition because no subsidy would exist. The argument doesn't make any sense.

I think it's a good thing for Hastings to reduce class size. But the negativity is happening because if this is the way law schools are gonna handle a collapse in demand (and the system probably dictates that most of them will handle it exactly like this) it seems like they are just trying to handle it like 'business as usual' with smaller class sizes and less staff.

What people like Campos is hoping for is a real, fundamental overthrow of the current system--one where law school tuition isn't massively overpriced, where schools don't have perverse incentives to over-hire and overpay faculty, and law school students aren't allowed to treat their loans like monopoly money.

ahnhub wrote:I think it's a good thing for Hastings to reduce class size. But the negativity is happening because if this is the way law schools are gonna handle a collapse in demand (and the system probably dictates that most of them will handle it exactly like this) it seems like they are just trying to handle it like 'business as usual' with smaller class sizes and less staff.

What people like Campos is hoping for is a real, fundamental overthrow of the current system--one where law school tuition isn't massively overpriced, where schools don't have perverse incentives to over-hire and overpay faculty, and law school students aren't allowed to treat their loans like monopoly money.

timbs4339 wrote:It's the last part of that statement that is troubling. If law schools want to start being treated like rational actors in a competitive market, then they are going to have to give up a lot of the federal subsidies that allow them to charge inflated tuition, as well as start being accountable to courts in actions for fraud and misrepresenting employment statistics. Maybe they should also pay taxes.

I fail to understand why people think it is so strange that academics, (and law academics) should be held to a higher standard than a for-profit corporation.

I can't think of a single ABA-Accredited law school in existence (with the exception of Phoenix Online.) Universities and professional schools don't just grow up overnight. It takes decades to establish a sustainable school. Having for-profit law schools is even more difficult because, all else equal, they would have to have higher tuition to maintain profitability (meaning they will leave the market.)

Assuming they somehow did exist, yes, you're right. It's just a historical norm that creates a societal expectation that education should be non-profit or public. If public/non-profit institutions had to pay the real cost of education they would either go out of existence or be no different than for-profit Universities.

Most people argue for public education because it's a positive externality on society. That's debatable and not worth derailing the thread.

Note: This has nothing to do with Hastings reducing its class size. But it is a nice break from studying.

Edit: I just noticed you said they shouldn't charge "inflated" tuition. If they are a rational actor then they are not paying "inflated" tuition. If they are a non-profit then they have no incentive to charged "inflated" tuition. There is no profit motive and they couldn't if they wanted to because of a competitive market. If they became for-profit they would actually have to increase the cost of tuition because no subsidy would exist. The argument doesn't make any sense.

They are charging inflated tuition because there is a bubble brought on by guaranteed federal student loans that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy as well as information asymmetry, misleading employment stats, and general cognitive bias among students. I'm not really sure what the rest of your post is saying- you seem to have misread my post. I am talking about the general hypocrisy of law schools wanting to be treated on the one hand like noble institutions performing a valuable public service and on the other behaving like for profit partnerships who want to squeeze as much money as possible out of students and distribute it to the "partners" (the deans and tenured professors).

This is also one of the points of Campos' blog and of the scambloggers who started the whole movement. It might not be as nuanced and polished as you might like, but that's also part of the charm. I'm sure the deans of TTT law schools making 500K per year when none of their students can find jobs seem very respectable in person. But their actions belie their true nature.

ahnhub wrote:I think it's a good thing for Hastings to reduce class size. But the negativity is happening because if this is the way law schools are gonna handle a collapse in demand (and the system probably dictates that most of them will handle it exactly like this) it seems like they are just trying to handle it like 'business as usual' with smaller class sizes and less staff.

What people like Campos is hoping for is a real, fundamental overthrow of the current system--one where law school tuition isn't massively overpriced, where schools don't have perverse incentives to over-hire and overpay faculty, and law school students aren't allowed to treat their loans like monopoly money.

I'm at Loyola. When I heard the news about Hastings I sent a pointed email to admissions asking them if they are planning something similar. They said no. I was told privately by a trusted source that our application numbers were actually holding up relatively well.

With the California budget the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first step towards total dissolution of Hastings.

Danteshek wrote:I'm at Loyola. When I heard the news about Hastings I sent a pointed email to admissions asking them if they are planning something similar. They said no. I was told privately by a trusted source that our application numbers were actually holding up relatively well.

With the California budget the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first step towards total dissolution of Hastings.

Doubtful. Hastings is unique in that it is independent of the Regents of the University of California.

Danteshek wrote:I'm at Loyola. When I heard the news about Hastings I sent a pointed email to admissions asking them if they are planning something similar. They said no. I was told privately by a trusted source that our application numbers were actually holding up relatively well.

With the California budget the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first step towards total dissolution of Hastings.

Yea I think Loyola should definitely do something similar. If not because of rankings, because of job placement.

Danteshek wrote:I'm at Loyola. When I heard the news about Hastings I sent a pointed email to admissions asking them if they are planning something similar. They said no. I was told privately by a trusted source that our application numbers were actually holding up relatively well.

With the California budget the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first step towards total dissolution of Hastings.

Yea I think Loyola should definitely do something similar. If not because of rankings, because of job placement.

Don't think it will happen, unfortunately. Loyola is now the largest law school in California by a pretty good margin.

Danteshek wrote:I'm at Loyola. When I heard the news about Hastings I sent a pointed email to admissions asking them if they are planning something similar. They said no. I was told privately by a trusted source that our application numbers were actually holding up relatively well.

With the California budget the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first step towards total dissolution of Hastings.

Yea I think Loyola should definitely do something similar. If not because of rankings, because of job placement.

Don't think it will happen, unfortunately. Loyola is now the largest law school in California by a pretty good margin.

Danteshek wrote:I'm at Loyola. When I heard the news about Hastings I sent a pointed email to admissions asking them if they are planning something similar. They said no. I was told privately by a trusted source that our application numbers were actually holding up relatively well.

With the California budget the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first step towards total dissolution of Hastings.

Doubtful. Hastings is unique in that it is independent of the Regents of the University of California.

Why does that matter? All the legislature needs to do is stop allocating funds...

Danteshek wrote:I'm at Loyola. When I heard the news about Hastings I sent a pointed email to admissions asking them if they are planning something similar. They said no. I was told privately by a trusted source that our application numbers were actually holding up relatively well.

With the California budget the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first step towards total dissolution of Hastings.

Doubtful. Hastings is unique in that it is independent of the Regents of the University of California.

I think that's even worse for Hastings. If they can't count on the Regents for support they are going to feel a decrease in student body much more. I doubt they will close for good though. That's unthinkable right now.

Danteshek wrote:I'm at Loyola. When I heard the news about Hastings I sent a pointed email to admissions asking them if they are planning something similar. They said no. I was told privately by a trusted source that our application numbers were actually holding up relatively well.

With the California budget the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first step towards total dissolution of Hastings.

Doubtful. Hastings is unique in that it is independent of the Regents of the University of California.

Why does that matter? All the legislature needs to do is stop allocating funds...

It's the Regent's budget that is completely and utterly fucked every year. While its tough for all public institutions in California right now, not being part of that system is generally to Hastings' advantage.

There is also a massive cash bomb that would hit the state if they fuck with Hastings' funding below a certain point.

Wikipedia wrote:UC Hastings is controlled by a nine-member Board of Directors. The UC Hastings Board of Directors exists independently of, and is not controlled by, the Regents of the University of California. Pursuant to California law, eight of the directors are appointed by the Governor of California. Pursuant to the UC Hastings constitutive documents, the ninth director must be a direct lineal descendant of UC Hastings founder Clinton Serranus Hastings. The Hastings family member now serving on the board is Claes H. Lewenhaupt.

UC Hastings' detachment from the UC Regents gives it a broad degree of independence in shaping educational and fiscal policies; however, due to a shrinking California education budget, Hastings must also compete for limited educational funds against its fellow UC campuses. Despite the apparent competition among the UC law schools, Hastings was able to maintain its traditionally high standards without having to decrease class size or raise tuition prices to higher levels than fellow UC law schools, until the California budget crisis in June 2009, first raised the possibility of slashing $10 million in state funding.

A few days later, however, lawmakers rejected the harsh budget cut, agreeing to cut only $1 million and apparently preventing dramatic tuition hikes.

Under California law, if the government ever cuts funding to Hastings to below the 19th century figure of $7,000 a year, the state must return the $100,000, plus interest, to the Hastings family. State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) has argued that the rejected $10 million budget cut, in abandoning state financial support for the school, would have allowed the Hastings family to launch an expensive court fight to reclaim the $100,000 plus hefty interest."

sundance95 wrote:Pursuant to the UC Hastings constitutive documents, the ninth director must be a direct lineal descendant of UC Hastings founder Clinton Serranus Hastings. The Hastings family member now serving on the board is Claes H. Lewenhaupt.

sundance95 wrote:Pursuant to the UC Hastings constitutive documents, the ninth director must be a direct lineal descendant of UC Hastings founder Clinton Serranus Hastings. The Hastings family member now serving on the board is Claes H. Lewenhaupt.

If you apply the same ratio of LSATs administered-to-ABA applicants (1.96) as the previous two known cycles, you get 66,300 applicants.

Then if you apply the same ratio of applicants-to-1st year enrollment (1.66) as the two previous known cycles, you get 39,960.

If you applied 6,000 total JD attrition (which seems to be what's been happening: --LinkRemoved--) you get down to 34,000 JD's graduating in 2015.

I think that probably overstates the effect. If I had to guess total 1st-year enrollment will probably stay north of 40,000.

Thanks for tallying this.

It is at least conceivable that the attrition rates might also increase a little if at least a significant portion of law students are becoming informed about how poor their job prospect are if they aren't in the top X of their class. Probably wishful thinking but there is a large percentage who should be dropping out after 1L year who are not behaving rationally.

I think we'll see some school closures soon, for the simple reason that tenure track/tenured faculty are hard to fire unless you shutter the whole department and it is doubtful that all of the present schools will be able to preserve their current faculty. A law school isn't the kind of department that can justify itself to the rest of a university unless it is in the black.